college employee satisfaction survey - chula vista, california · 2019-10-23 · college employee...

College Employee Satisfaction Survey

SPRING 2015

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Institutional Research Unit

College Employee Satisfaction Survey Spring 2015

Table of Contents

Introduction

Survey Themes, Contents, and Rating Scales ........................................................................................... 1

Understanding the Survey Results ................................................................................................................. 3

Key Findings

Section 1: Campus Culture and Policies ................................................................................................... 5

Section 2: Institutional Goals .................................................................................................................... 5

Section 3: Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making ....................................................................... 6

Section 4: Work Environment .................................................................................................................. 6

Overall Satisfaction ................................................................................................................................... 7

Institutional Comparison Group List .............................................................................................................. 8

Respondent Demographics ............................................................................................................................ 10

Section 1: Campus Culture and Policies ......................................................................................................... 11

Section 1.A

Table 1: Importance and Satisfaction Descriptives, Gap Scores,

& Year-to-Year Comparisons of Gap Ranking................................................................................ 12

Table 2: Statistical Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Ratings

Between Southwestern College and Comparison Group ............................................................... 14

Section 1.B

Campus Culture and Policies, Tables and Charts ............................................................................... 16

Section 2: Institutional Goals ......................................................................................................................... 25

Table 3: Importance Rating Descriptives ........................................................................................... 26

Table 4: Means and Mean Change of Importance Scores from

Spring 2014 to Spring 2015 ........................................................................................................... 26

Figure 1: Bar chart of Mean Change of Importance Scores from Spring 2014

to Spring 2015 ............................................................................................................................... 27

Table 5: Statistical Comparison of Importance Scores between

Southwestern College and Comparison Group .............................................................................. 28

Table 6: Weighted Priority Ranking of Institutional Goals from Spring 2014

to Spring 2015 ............................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 2: Bar chart of Weighted Priority Ranking of Institutional Goals from Spring 2014

to Spring 2015 ............................................................................................................................... 29

Section 3: Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making ............................................................................ 30

Table 7: Involvement Rating Descriptives .......................................................................................... 31

Table 8: Statistical Comparison of Involvement Ratings between

Southwestern College and Comparison Group .............................................................................. 31

Table 9: Distance Scores & Change from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015 ............................................... 31


Figure 3: Bar chart of Involvement Distance Scores from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015 ..................... 32

Section 4: Work Environment ........................................................................................................................ 33

Section 4.A

Table 10: Importance and Satisfaction Descriptives, Gap Scores,

& Year-to-Year Comparison of Gap Ranking ................................................................................. 34

Table 11: Statistical Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Ratings


Section 4.B

Work Environment, Tables and Charts .............................................................................................. 36

Overall Satisfaction ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Table 12: Descriptives, Spring 2015 ................................................................................................... 43

Table 13: Means and Mean Change from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015 ............................................. 43

Table 14: Statistical Comparison of Overall Satisfaction Ratings


Survey Instrument

Ruffalo Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey ................................................................ 44

Open-Ended Response Summaries .............................................................................................................. 49


1

Introduction

Survey Themes, Contents, and Rating Scales1 The College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS), created and administered by Ruffalo Noel-Levitz, is designed to assess the campus environment for all college employees (faculty, staff, and administration) on various workplace themes, including interdepartmental communication, campus mission, institutional goals, and decision-making. The survey allows employees the opportunity to contribute their opinions and concerns regarding the workplace environment and institution in general. The College Employee Satisfaction Survey Report is divided into several sections:

Respondent Demographics

Section 1: Campus Culture and Policies

Section 2: Institutional Goals

Section 3: Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making

Section 4: Work Environment

Overall Satisfaction In Section 1, Campus Culture and Policies, respondents were asked to rate thirty-five survey items related to campus culture and college policy in terms of importance and satisfaction. The original version of the survey includes thirty core items within Section 1. Southwestern College’s Office of Research, Grants, and Planning provided an additional five items specific to our institutional environment:

This institution’s leadership demonstrates support for shared planning and decision-making.

This institution’s leadership creates an environment that promotes trust and respect.

The Superintendent/President makes timely and informed decisions.

The Governing Board does a good job implementing policy initiatives.

This institution does a good job communicating budget decision-making processes. The following five-point Likert scale was used for both importance and satisfaction ratings:

Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale

Importance Rating Numerical Value Satisfaction Rating

Very important 5 Very satisfied

Important 4 Satisfied

Somewhat Important 3 Somewhat Satisfied

Not very important 2 Not very satisfied

Not important at all 1 Not satisfied at all

In Section 2, Institutional Goals, respondents were asked to rate the importance of nine distinct institutional goals and to then select three of those goals as Southwestern College’s top priorities. This section also included one open-ended question, “What other institutional goals do you think are important? Please describe them in the space below.”

1 Source: Ruffalo Noel Levitz Interpretive Guide


2

In Section 3, Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making, survey participants were asked to indicate the level of involvement they believe each constituency group (faculty, staff, deans, trustees, alumni, etc.) should have in the College’s planning and decision-making processes. The following five-point Likert scale was used for involvement ratings:

Involvement Rating Scale

Involvement Rating Numerical Value

Too much involvement 5

More than enough involvement 4

Just the right involvement 3

Not quite enough involvement 2

Not enough involvement 1

In Section 4, Work Environment, participants were asked to respond to twenty-five statements related to work environment in terms of importance and satisfaction that utilized the same rating scale as Section 1. Four of the twenty-five statements in Section 4 were additional items provided by the SWC Office of Research, Grants, & Planning and are specific to the College’s version of the survey:

I have a reasonable workload.

Work responsibilities are within my job description.

My workplace fosters an environment of ethical behavior.

I am comfortable expressing my opinion.

Overall Satisfaction In addition to the four sections outlined above, the survey included a global satisfaction item (“Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far”) that utilized the same 5-point Likert satisfaction scale as found in Section 1. The final section included three additional open-ended questions related to Campus Culture and Policies, Institutional Goals, and Work Environment:

1. Please provide any additional feedback about the campus culture and policies at Southwestern College. 2. Please provide any additional feedback about this institution’s goals. 3. Please provide any additional feedback about the work environment at Southwestern College.

Survey Instrument Validity and Reliability The reliability of the Ruffalo Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey was measured by comparing year-to-year, overall satisfaction averages for institutions with multiple years of survey results. The survey demonstrated consistent results. The correlation of overall satisfaction between successive years of the survey was .649. Due to the absence of another instrument to compare to the CESS, validity was measured by the correlation between individual survey items and overall satisfaction. All correlations were significant at the .01 level. This is an indication that survey items are both associated with, and contribute to, overall satisfaction.


3

Understanding the Survey Results

Statistical Terminology An important component of this report is the use of the mean and standard deviation (SD) of aggregated survey responses. The mean, or average, is derived by summing scores on a particular survey item and dividing by the total count of responses. Within context of an individual survey item, standard deviation is a measure of the relative dispersion of scores. Interpretation of standard deviation is important for understanding the distribution of survey item data. A large standard deviation indicates greater variability in scores around the mean, while a smaller value denotes a tighter distribution of scores, or, in this case, stronger agreement among responses. Statistical significance refers to the likelihood that an observed result or relationship does not occur by chance, and would likely occur again if testing were repeated. The role of the p-value and alpha level in the determination of statistical significance is a ubiquitous aspect of statistical research. In practice, a p-value under five percent is strong evidence, but not absolute proof, that a given result is statistically significant and the result of a systematic effect. In essence, p-values assist in the determination of whether observed differences across mean survey scores are too great to have simply occurred by chance. In this report, one asterisk (*) signifies a p-value of .05, meaning that the two scores are significantly different and such a difference would only be due to change 5% of the time. Two asterisks (**) signify a p-value of .01, meaning the two scores are significantly different and that such a difference would only occur by change 1% of the time. Finally, three asterisks (***) signify a p-value of .001, meaning that the two scores are significantly different and such a difference would only be due to chance 0.1% of the time.

Calculating the Performance Gap Means for importance and satisfaction ratings for individual items are calculated by summing all respondent ratings and dividing by the number of valid respondents. Performance gap means are calculated by taking the difference between the (mean) importance rating and the (mean) satisfaction rating. A large performance gap value indicates a large disparity between employee ratings of importance and their level of satisfaction for a given survey item.

Institutional Comparison Groups As part of its survey administration service, Ruffalo Noel-Levitz provides a complimentary comparison report of our survey results to a master list of like institutions. Currently, the list is composed of thirty-five two-year, public colleges across the country (see , “Institution Comparison Groups,” for the list of colleges included in questionnaire item comparisons). Each section of this report includes a table of significant mean differences between Southwestern College ratings and the comparison group ratings. Items identified as being “statistically significant” denote a substantive statistical difference between the mean (average) scores of Southwestern College items and the average scores of comparison institutions. It is important to note that all statistical analyses in this report utilized questionnaire prompts that were original to the Ruffalo Noel-Levitz survey; consequently, questionnaire items added by the SWC Office of Research, Grants, & Planning are excluded from statistical analysis with comparison institutions.

Year-to-Year Comparisons This year marks the second administration of the Employee Satisfaction survey hosted by the company, Ruffalo Noel-Levitz. As a result, we will be able to compare survey results longitudinally to illustrate improvements, or lack thereof, made by the college in response to last year’s findings. Year-to-year comparisons will be included in the majority of the results sections in this report.


4

Survey Administration Southwestern College launched the initial administration of the Ruffalo Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey on March 13, 2015. Employees had approximately four weeks to complete the survey, including Spring Break, before its closure on April 9, 2015. The survey was administered online through survey links distributed using the College’s Microsoft Outlook e-mail system to active employee’s email accounts. Approximately 1,489 college employees received a survey invitation. Over the course of the four-week survey period, four reminder notifications were sent to employees. By its close, the survey received two hundred thirty-eight (238) complete submissions, a response rate of sixteen percent (16%), and two hundred eighty-three (283) total submissions, a response rate of 19%.All submitted responses were included in the total survey response rate, regardless of full or partial completion of individual surveys. The total response rate of 19% is up one percentage point from the previous administration in spring 2014. To ensure anonymity, IP addresses were not tracked and demographic information is reported in aggregate form only.


5

Key Findings

Section 1: Campus Culture and Policies Importance In regards to campus culture and policies, Southwestern College employees provided the highest ratings of importance on items related to student experience and faculty and staff performance. Survey items rated highest on importance in Section 1 are:

“This institution treats students as its top priority”

“Staff take pride in their work”

“This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students”

“Faculty take pride in their work”

“This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships”

Satisfaction Those items with the highest importance ratings also received some of the highest satisfaction ratings among College employees, with the exception of “…meeting the needs of students” and treating “students as its top priority.” Respondents also rated “meeting the needs of administrators” high in terms of satisfaction, which was up .15 points from the previous year.

Importance and Satisfaction Gap Similar to feedback from the 2014 survey administration, items with the largest gap in ratings between level of importance and amount of satisfaction were related to campus environment, communication and collaboration, and budgetary issues. Survey items with the largest gaps between importance and satisfaction in Section 1 are:

“There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution”

“This institution’s leadership creates an environment that promotes trust and respect”

“This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives”

“This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives”

“There are effective lines of communication between departments”

Comparison Group Southwestern College respondent’s satisfaction ratings were significantly lower on every item in Section 1 in respect to the institutional comparison group’s averages. In terms of importance, Southwestern respondents rated only four items significantly less important than the average response for the comparison group.

Section 2: Institutional Goals Southwestern College employees identified the following goals as most important and as top priorities for the institution. These priorities remain unchanged from the previous year’s survey administration.

“Retain more of its current students to graduation”

“Improve employee morale”

“Improve the quality of existing academic programs”

In last year’s analysis, Southwestern College employees gave each of these three identified goals higher ratings of importance than that of the institutional comparison group. This year there are no significant differences in ratings for the goals between Southwestern and comparison group respondents.


6

Section 3: Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making Relatively consistent with last year’s ratings, when survey respondents were asked about constituency groups’ involvement in planning and decision-making, the following groups were ranked based on averages scores in order from “too much involvement” to “not enough involvement:”

Senior administrators

Deans or directors of administrative units

Deans or directors of academic units

Trustees

Academic Senate

Faculty

Staff

Students

Alumni All involvement ratings for constituency groups were significantly different from institutional comparison group ratings, with the exception of trustees, students, and staff. Of those ratings that were significantly different, Southwestern College respondents rated senior administrators, deans or directors of administrative units, deans or chairs of academic units, and faculty higher in involvement than the comparison group. The only group that Southwestern respondents rated significantly lower than the comparison group was alumni.


Importance In regards to work environment, Southwestern College employees provided the highest ratings of importance on items related to the value of the work that is done at the College and compensation and employee benefits. Survey items rated highest on importance in Section 4 are:

“The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding”

“The work I do is valuable to the institution”

“I am proud to work at this institution”

“The employee benefits available to me are valuable”

“I am paid fairly for the work I do”

Satisfaction Those items with the highest importance ratings also received some of the highest satisfaction ratings among Southwestern College employees, with the exception of items related to compensation and benefits.

Importance and Satisfaction Gap Similar to feedback from the 2014 survey administration, items with the largest gap in ratings between level of importance and amount of satisfaction were related to fiscal needs, personnel support, job advancement, and information sharing. Salary compensation seems to be slightly less of a concern as compared to last year. “I am paid fairly for the work I do” had one of the largest gaps in the 2014 survey administration and this year sits sixth in rank. Survey items with the largest gaps between importance and satisfaction in Section 4 are:

“My department has the staff needed to do its job well”

“My department has the budget needed to do its job well”

“I have adequate opportunities for advancement”

“It is easy for me to get information at this institution”


7

Comparison Group Southwestern College respondents’ satisfaction ratings were significantly lower on every item in Section 4 when compared to the comparison group’s averages, with the exception of two items: “I am paid fairly for the work I do” and “The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding.” In terms of importance, Southwestern respondents rated only two items significantly less important than the average response for the comparison group: “I have the information I need to do my job well” and “My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say.”

Overall Satisfaction Satisfaction Lastly, respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with their employment at Southwestern College so far. In the current survey administration, overall satisfaction fell between “Somewhat satisfied” and “Satisfied” (M = 3.65). This was a moderate improvement from the previous year, though the difference between spring 2014 and spring 2015 was not statistically significant.

Comparison Group Southwestern College respondents’ overall satisfaction rating was significantly lower compared to the institutional comparison group’s satisfaction rating.


8

Institutional Comparison Group List

Comparison Institutions* Type of Institution Location

Aims Community College 2-year, Public Colorado

Arizona Western College 2-year, Public Arizona

Broome Community College 2-year, Public New York

Butler Community College 2-year, Public Kansas

Cascadia Community College 2-year, Public Washington

Central Ohio Tech 2-year, Public Ohio

College of the Redwoods Ɨ 2-year, Public California

Community College of Beaver County 2-year, Public Pennsylvania

Cowley County Community College 2-year, Public Kansas

Eastern Gateway Community College 2-year, Public Ohio

Georgia Military College 2-year, Public Georgia

Greenville Technical College 2-year, Public South Carolina

Kankakee Community College 2-year, Public Illinois

Kishwaukee College 2-year, Public Illinois

Lakeland College AB 2-year, Public Wisconsin

Lakeshore Technical College 2-year, Public Wisconsin

Laramie County Community College Ɨ 2-year, Public Wyoming

Laredo Community College 2-year, Public Texas

Marion Technical College Ɨ 2-year, Public Ohio

Minneapolis Community and Technical College 2-year, Public Minnesota

Montcalm Community College 2-year, Public Michigan

Mountain View College Ɨ 2-year, Public Texas

Mountwest Community & Technical College 2-year, Public West Virginia

Mt Hood Community College Ɨ 2-year, Public Oregon

Murray State College 2-year, Public Oklahoma

New Mexico Junior College 2-year, Public New Mexico

New Mexico State University - Carlsbad 2-year, Public New Mexico

Normandale Community College 2-year, Public Minnesota

North Dakota State College of Science Ɨ 2-year, Public North Dakota

Northeast Iowa Community College Ɨ 2-year, Public Iowa

Northeast State Community College 2-year, Public Tennessee

Northern Oklahoma College Ɨ 2-year, Public Oklahoma

Northwest Arkansas Community College Ɨ 2-year, Public Arkansas

Northwest Iowa Community College 2-year, Public Iowa

Northwest Technical College 2-year, Public Minnesota

Ogeechee Technical College 2-year, Public Georgia

Parkland College Ɨ 2-year, Public Illinois

Piedmont Technical College 2-year, Public South Carolina

Rhodes State College 2-year, Public Ohio


9

Comparison Institutions* Type of Institution Location

Santa Fe Community College 2-year, Public Florida

Southwest Wisconsin Technical College 2-year, Public Wisconsin

Tri-County Technical College 2-year, Public South Carolina

Trident Technical College 2-year, Public South Carolina

Western Technical College 2-year, Public Wisconsin

Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College 2-year, Public Wisconsin

* All comparison institution data collected within the last three years

Ɨ College added to Comparison Group as of 2015.


10

Respondent Demographics

As illustrated in the tables below, Southwestern College survey respondents, in comparison to similar 2-year, public

institutions, are employees who have been working at the College longer and are comprised of slightly more faculty

positions and fewer full-time positions. As compared to the distribution of all Southwestern College employees, survey

respondents are comprised of substantially more administrators (12% of respondents, 2% of all SWC employees) and

classified staff (37% of respondents, 29% of all SWC employees). Additionally, though faculty make up about 69% of

employees at Southwestern College, they only represented about 50% of survey respondents.

How long have you worked at this institution? SWC

Count SWC

Percent Comparison

Count Comparison

Percent

Less than 1 year 18 7.6% 1,070 7.9%

1 to 5 years 35 14.7% 4,084 30.2%

6 to 10 years 41 17.2% 3,184 23.5%

11 to 20 years 96 40.3% 3,387 25.0%

More than 20 years 48 20.2% 1,812 13.4%

All responses 238 100.0% 13,537 100.0%

Is your position: SWC

Count SWC

Percent Comparison

Count Comparison

Percent

Faculty 121 50.8% 5,710 44.0%

Staff 88 37.0% 5,869 45.2%

Administrator 29 12.2% 1,397 10.8%

All responses 238 100.0% 12,976 100.0%

Is your position: SWC

Count SWC

Percent Comparison

Count Comparison

Percent

Full-time 180 75.6% 10,466 83.6%

Part-time 58 24.4% 2,056 16.4%

All responses 238 100.0% 12,522 100.0%


11

Section 1: Campus Culture and Policies

Section 1.A

Table 1. Campus Culture and Policies: Importance and Satisfaction Descriptives, Gap Scores, & Year-to-Year

Comparison of Gap Ranking

Table 2. Campus Culture and Policies: Statistical Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Ratings between

Southwestern College and Comparison Group

Section 1.B

Tables and bar charts for importance and satisfaction mean changes from 2014 to 2015

Section 1.A presents response data for the first thirty-five items of the 2015 CESS and addresses employee attitudes

toward campus culture and college policy. The first data table (Table 1) includes descriptive statistics for both the

importance and satisfaction ratings of each item, as well as performance gap analysis of the two aforementioned

categories. Descriptive statistics include the mean, standard deviation (“SD”), and the valid number of responses

tallied for each item (“n”). Please see Statistical Terminology on page 2 for further clarification of statistics.

Performance gap analysis is a method used to determine the amount of disparity between the average level of

importance and the average level of satisfaction for a given survey item. The items in this table have been ranked by

gap size, from largest to smallest. Large gaps (items near the top of the list) indicate substantial differences in ratings

of importance and levels of satisfaction, and signify areas of weakness in regard to employee satisfaction. Items

toward the end of the list require less attention, as they are better balanced between the two ratings. Gap rankings

for both 2014 and 2015 results are included to illustrate changes in attitudes from the previous year and are available

in Table 1.

The second table in Section 1.A (Table 2) provides a comparison of importance and satisfaction ratings between

Southwestern College and the institutional comparison group. This analysis includes only the survey items provided in

the original version of the Ruffalo Noel-Levitz questionnaire, and does not include additional items specific to the

Southwestern College version of the survey (items 31 through 35). Item averages that significantly differed between

our College and the comparison group are highlighted in beige (dark beige for importance; light beige for satisfaction)

and marked with one, two, or three asterisks, depending on significance level. Please see Statistical Terminology on

page 2 for further clarification of significance testing.

Section 1.B provides graphical and tabular information for each survey item. These charts allow for comparison

between importance and satisfaction ratings, changes in these ratings from 2014 to 2015, and provide more detailed

information regarding the change in gap scores from year to year.


12

SECTION 1.A

Table 1. Campus Culture and Policies: Importance and Satisfaction Descriptives, Gap Scores, & Year-to-Year Comparison of Gap Ranking

2015 Gap Rank

2014 Gap Rank

Statements Rated on Importance and Satisfaction Scales (Score of 1: “Not important/Not satisfied at all” / Score of 5: “Very important/Very satisfied”)

IMPORTANCE SATISFACTION Gap

Mean SD n Mean SD n

1 1 There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution 4.54 0.82 241 2.54 1.17 246 2.00

2 2 This institution’s leadership creates an environment that promotes trust and respect Ɨ 4.54 0.77 238 2.58 1.24 242 1.96

3 3 This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 4.52 0.77 271 2.73 1.12 277 1.79

4 8 This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives 4.48 0.77 273 2.71 1.10 279 1.77

5 10 There are effective lines of communication between departments 4.30 0.83 240 2.53 1.06 246 1.77

6 6 This institution plans carefully 4.51 0.77 273 2.74 1.20 281 1.77

7 7 Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution 4.37 0.80 236 2.63 1.14 240 1.74

8 12 Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 4.46 0.74 240 2.75 1.14 245 1.71

9 4 There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution 4.42 0.78 236 2.76 1.08 241 1.66

10 5 The institution does a good job communicating its budget decision-making processes Ɨ 4.43 0.83 235 2.78 1.16 243 1.65

11 13 The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose 4.51 0.80 271 2.87 1.25 278 1.64

12 11 This institution is well-respected in the community 4.57 0.73 237 2.94 1.20 243 1.63

13 24 This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service 4.34 0.84 237 2.71 1.13 242 1.63

14 15 There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution 4.41 0.81 232 2.79 1.10 242 1.62

15 25 This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new employees 4.43 0.81 239 2.82 1.23 243 1.61

16 18 This institution’s leadership demonstrates support for shared planning and decision-making Ɨ 4.43 0.75 237 2.82 1.21 244 1.61

17 16 This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of staff 4.41 0.85 271 2.83 1.09 274 1.58

18 27 This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees 4.41 0.81 237 2.87 1.13 240 1.54

19 20 This institution treats students as its top priority 4.68 0.65 280 3.14 1.16 283 1.54

20 9 The reputation of this institution continues to improve 4.50 0.76 241 2.97 1.20 244 1.53

21 17 This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.41 0.79 274 2.90 1.20 279 1.51

22 21 Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 4.48 0.72 235 3.00 1.15 241 1.48

23 23 This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students 4.62 0.66 278 3.16 1.06 282 1.46

24 14 This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty 4.42 0.84 274 2.97 1.12 277 1.45

25 22 The Superintendent/President makes timely and informed decisions Ɨ 4.52 0.75 235 3.19 1.18 242 1.33

26 19 The Governing Board does a good job implementing policy initiatives Ɨ 4.49 0.74 233 3.18 1.10 237 1.31

27 31 This institution consistently follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements 4.20 0.88 234 2.92 1.11 239 1.28


13

SECTION 1.A

Table 1. Campus Culture and Policies: Importance and Satisfaction Descriptives, Gap Scores, & Year-to-Year Comparison of Gap Ranking

2015 Gap Rank

2014 Gap Rank


IMPORTANCE SATISFACTION Gap

Mean SD n Mean SD n

28 26 Administrators take pride in their work 4.56 0.70 233 3.29 1.14 238 1.27

29 29 This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships 4.61 0.70 279 3.37 0.98 281 1.24

30 28 The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values 4.36 0.80 271 3.18 1.10 277 1.18

31 30 The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by most employees 4.29 0.79 278 3.12 1.07 278 1.17

32 32 Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution 4.33 0.78 274 3.25 1.01 278 1.08

33 33 Faculty take pride in their work 4.62 0.59 238 3.69 0.94 242 0.93

34 34 Staff take pride in their work 4.63 0.62 235 3.70 0.98 243 0.93

35 35 This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of administrators 4.18 0.91 267 3.58 1.09 272 0.60

† Item is unique to Southwestern College’s version of the survey.


14

SECTION 1.A

Table 2. Campus Culture and Policies: Statistical Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Ratings between Southwestern College and Comparison Group


SOUTHWESTERN COMPARISON GROUP Significance

IMP Mean

SAT Mean

Gap IMP

Mean SAT

Mean Gap IMP SAT

This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships 4.61 3.37 1.24 4.62 3.76 0.87 NS ***

This institution treats students as its top priority 4.68 3.14 1.54 4.70 3.70 1.01 NS ***

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students 4.62 3.16 1.46 4.68 3.65 1.03 NS ***

The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by most employees 4.29 3.12 1.18 4.35 3.55 0.80 NS ***

Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution 4.33 3.25 1.08 4.37 3.61 0.76 NS ***

The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values 4.36 3.18 1.47 4.43 3.62 0.82 NS ***

This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.41 2.90 1.66 4.41 3.11 1.31 NS **

This institution plans carefully 4.51 2.74 1.77 4.51 3.21 1.31 NS ***

The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose 4.51 2.87 1.64 4.59 3.40 1.20 * ***

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty 4.42 2.97 1.44 4.43 3.30 1.13 NS ***

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of staff 4.41 2.83 1.57 4.41 3.18 1.23 NS ***

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of administrators 4.18 3.58 0.59 4.22 3.71 0.51 NS *

This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 4.52 2.73 1.79 4.47 3.24 1.23 NS ***

This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives 4.48 2.71 1.77 4.40 3.16 1.25 NS ***

There are effective lines of communication between departments 4.30 2.53 1.78 4.45 2.87 1.57 ** ***

Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 4.46 2.75 1.72 4.47 3.13 1.35 NS ***

There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution 4.42 2.76 1.66 4.47 3.11 1.35 NS ***

There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution 4.41 2.79 1.62 4.43 3.11 1.32 NS ***

Faculty take pride in their work 4.62 3.69 0.93 4.67 3.91 0.75 NS ***

Staff take pride in their work 4.63 3.70 0.93 4.62 3.83 0.79 NS *

Administrators take pride in their work 4.56 3.29 1.28 4.59 3.77 0.83 NS ***

There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution 4.54 2.54 2.00 4.58 3.09 1.49 NS ***

The reputation of this institution continues to improve 4.50 2.97 1.53 4.59 3.53 1.06 * ***

This institution is well-respected in the community 4.57 2.94 1.63 4.64 3.74 0.90 * ***

Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 4.48 3.00 1.48 4.49 3.43 1.06 NS ***


15

SECTION 1.A

Table 2. Campus Culture and Policies: Statistical Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Ratings between Southwestern College and Comparison Group



IMP Mean

SAT Mean

Gap IMP

Mean SAT

Mean Gap IMP SAT

Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution 4.37 2.63 1.74 4.36 3.03 1.32 NS ***

This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new employees 4.43 2.82 1.60 4.40 3.22 1.17 NS ***

This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees 4.41 2.87 1.54 4.42 3.18 1.24 NS ***

This institution consistently follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements 4.20 2.92 1.28 4.24 3.19 1.05 NS ***

This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service 4.34 2.71 1.63 4.33 3.18 1.15 NS ***

*, **, *** Group means are significantly different at .05, .01, and .001 levels, respectively, and highlighted in tan for emphasis.


16

Section 1.B: Campus Culture and Policies, Tables & Charts

1. This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships

Importance Satisfaction Gap

Spring 2014 4.62 3.24 1.38

Spring 2015 4.61 3.37 1.24

Difference -0.01 0.13 -0.14

3. This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students


Spring 2014 4.72 3.06 1.66

Spring 2015 4.62 3.16 1.46

Difference -0.10 0.10 -0.20

2. This institution treats students as its top priority


Spring 2014 4.73 3.01 1.72

Spring 2015 4.68 3.14 1.54

Difference -0.05 0.13 -0.18

4. The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by most employees


Spring 2014 4.38 3.02 1.36

Spring 2015 4.29 3.12 1.17

Difference -0.09 0.10 -0.19

4.62

3.24

4.61

3.37

252 250279 281

Importance Satisfaction

n

Spring 2014 Spring 2015

4.72

3.06

4.62

3.16

250 252278 282


n


4.73

3.01

4.68

3.14

252 252280 283


n


4.38

3.02

4.29

3.12

249 251278 278


n



17

5. Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution


Spring 2014 4.42 3.19 1.23

Spring 2015 4.33 3.25 1.08

Difference -0.09 0.06 -0.15

7. This institution involves its employees in planning for the future


Spring 2014 4.50 2.72 1.78

Spring 2015 4.41 2.90 1.51

Difference -0.09 0.18 -0.27

6. The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values


Spring 2014 4.47 3.00 1.47

Spring 2015 4.36 3.18 1.18

Difference -0.11 0.18 -0.29

8. This institution plans carefully


Spring 2014 4.54 2.59 1.95

Spring 2015 4.51 2.74 1.77

Difference -0.03 0.15 -0.18

4.42

3.19

4.33

3.25

248 250274 278


n


4.50

2.72

4.41

2.90

249 253274 279


n


4.47

3.00

4.36

3.18

249 251271 277


n


4.54

2.59

4.51

2.74

249 252273 281


n



18

9. The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose


Spring 2014 4.55 2.72 1.83

Spring 2015 4.51 2.87 1.64

Difference -0.04 0.15 -0.19

11. This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of staff


Spring 2014 4.38 2.58 1.80

Spring 2015 4.41 2.83 1.58

Difference 0.03 0.25 -0.22

10. This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty


Spring 2014 4.38 2.56 1.82

Spring 2015 4.42 2.97 1.45

Difference 0.04 0.41 -0.37

12. This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of administrators


Spring 2014 4.03 3.49 0.54

Spring 2015 4.18 3.58 0.60

Difference 0.15 0.09 0.06

4.55

2.72

4.51

2.87

249 251271 278


n


4.38

2.58

4.41

2.83

247 247271 274


n


4.38

2.56

4.42

2.97

248 248274 277


n


4.03

3.49

4.18

3.58

247 244267 272


n



19

13. This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives


Spring 2014 4.50 2.42 2.08

Spring 2015 4.52 2.73 1.79

Difference 0.02 0.31 -0.29

15. There are effective lines of communication between departments


Spring 2014 4.43 2.50 1.93

Spring 2015 4.30 2.53 1.77

Difference -0.13 0.03 -0.16

14. This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives


Spring 2014 4.40 2.47 1.93

Spring 2015 4.48 2.71 1.77

Difference 0.08 0.24 -0.16

16. Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff


Spring 2014 4.48 2.60 1.88

Spring 2015 4.46 2.75 1.71

Difference -0.02 0.15 -0.17

4.50

2.42

4.52

2.73

248 251271 277


n


4.43

2.50

4.30

2.53

230 226240 246


n


4.40

2.47

4.48

2.71

247 249273 279


n


4.48

2.60

4.46

2.75

229 229240 245


n



20

17. There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution


Spring 2014 4.50 2.45 2.05

Spring 2015 4.42 2.76 1.66

Difference -0.08 0.31 -0.39

19. Faculty take pride in their work


Spring 2014 4.76 3.74 1.02

Spring 2015 4.62 3.69 0.93

Difference -0.14 -0.05 -0.09

18. There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution


Spring 2014 4.46 2.64 1.82

Spring 2015 4.41 2.79 1.62

Difference -0.05 0.15 -0.20

20. Staff take pride in their work


Spring 2014 4.71 3.79 0.92

Spring 2015 4.63 3.70 0.93

Difference -0.08 -0.09 0.01

4.50

2.45

4.42

2.76

227 227236 241


n


4.76

3.74

4.62

3.69

229 227238 242


n


4.46

2.64

4.41

2.79

226 224232 242


n


4.71

3.79

4.63

3.70

229 226235 243


n



21

21. Administrators take pride in their work


Spring 2014 4.63 3.11 1.52

Spring 2015 4.56 3.29 1.27

Difference -0.07 0.18 -0.25

23. The reputation of this institution continues to improve


Spring 2014 4.54 2.61 1.93

Spring 2015 4.50 2.97 1.53

Difference -0.04 0.36 -0.40

22. There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution


Spring 2014 4.53 2.29 2.24

Spring 2015 4.54 2.54 2.00

Difference 0.01 0.25 -0.24

24. This institution is well-respected in the community


Spring 2014 4.58 2.69 1.89

Spring 2015 4.57 2.94 1.63

Difference -0.01 0.25 -0.26

4.63

3.11

4.56

3.29

225 224233 238


n


4.54

2.61

4.50

2.97

231 229241 244


n


4.53

2.29

4.54

2.54

231 231241 246


n


4.58

2.69

4.57

2.94

227 225237 243


n



22

25. Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution


Spring 2014 4.48 2.79 1.69

Spring 2015 4.48 3.00 1.48

Difference 0.00 0.21 -0.21

27. This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new employees


Spring 2014 4.46 2.84 1.62

Spring 2015 4.43 2.82 1.61

Difference -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

26. Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution


Spring 2014 4.37 2.43 1.94

Spring 2015 4.37 2.63 1.74

Difference 0.00 0.20 -0.20

28. This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees


Spring 2014 4.40 2.91 1.49

Spring 2015 4.41 2.87 1.54

Difference 0.01 -0.04 0.05

4.48

2.79

4.48

3.00

230 227235 241


n


4.46

2.84

4.43

2.82

228 224239 243


n


4.37

2.43

4.37

2.63

227 225236 240


n


4.40

2.91

4.41

2.87

224 223237 240


n



23

29. This institution consistently follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements


Spring 2014 4.22 2.86 1.36

Spring 2015 4.20 2.92 1.28

Difference -0.02 0.06 -0.08

31. This institution's leadership demonstrates support for shared planning and decision-making


Spring 2014 4.45 2.69 1.76

Spring 2015 4.43 2.82 1.61

Difference -0.02 0.13 -0.15

30. This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service


Spring 2014 4.42 2.78 1.64

Spring 2015 4.34 2.71 1.63

Difference -0.08 -0.07 -0.01

32. This institution's leadership creates an environment that promotes trust and respect


Spring 2014 4.58 2.36 2.22

Spring 2015 4.54 2.58 1.96

Difference -0.04 0.22 -0.26

4.22

2.86

4.20

2.92

226 225234 239


n


4.45

2.69

4.43

2.82

227 229237 244


n


4.42

2.78

4.34

2.71

228 225237 242


n


4.58

2.36

4.54

2.58

227 229238 242


n



24

33. The Superintendent/President makes timely and informed decisions


Spring 2014 4.58 2.91 1.67

Spring 2015 4.52 3.19 1.33

Difference -0.06 0.28 -0.34

35. The institution does a good job communicating its budget decision-making processes


Spring 2014 4.51 2.51 2.00

Spring 2015 4.43 2.78 1.65

Difference -0.08 0.27 -0.35

34. The Governing Board does a good job implementing policy initiatives


Spring 2014 4.54 2.79 1.75

Spring 2015 4.49 3.18 1.31

Difference -0.05 0.39 -0.44

4.58

2.91

4.52

3.19

228 226235 242


n


4.51

2.51

4.43

2.78

228 227235 243


n


4.54

2.79

4.49

3.18

225 224233 237


n



25

Section 2: Institutional Goals

Table 3. Institutional Goals: Importance Rating Descriptives Table 4. Institutional Goals: Means and Mean Change of Importance Scores from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015 Figure 1. Bar Chart of Mean Change of Importance Scores from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015 Table 5. Institutional Goals: Statistical Comparison of Importance Scores between Southwestern College and

Comparison Group Table 6. Institutional Goals: Weighted Priority Ranking of Institutional Goals and Ranking Change from Spring

2014 to Spring 2015 Figure 2. Bar chart of Weighted Priority Ranking of Institutional Goals from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015

Section 2 focused on the importance and prioritization of Institutional Goals at Southwestern College. In the first section, respondents were asked to rate the level of importance of eleven institutional goals on a Likert scale from 1 (“Not important at all”) to 5 (“Very important”). Table 3 presents descriptive data related to institutional goal importance ratings. Descriptive statistics include the mean, standard deviation (“SD”), and the valid number of responses tallied for each item (“n”). Please see Statistical Terminology on page 2 for further clarification of statistics. Mean scores of institutional goals are presented in order of highest to lowest importance ratings. Table 4 includes Importance means scores from the spring 2014 survey administration in comparison to spring 2015 ratings. A mean change was calculated for each of the items and Figure 1 depicts these year-to-year changes. Positive scores (bars above the axis) indicate an increase in ratings of importance from 2014 to 2015; while negative scores (bars below the axis) indicate a decrease in ratings of importance. Please note: Table 4 has two fewer items as Goals J and K are excluded for comparison purposes. Table 5 provides a comparison of Importance mean scores from Southwestern College to the institutional comparison group. None of the means significantly differed between the College and the comparison group for this current survey administration. Survey respondents were then asked to rank the top three goals that they felt should be the institution’s top priorities. Due to the ranking aspect of this section, and to standardize scores across years, raw counts for each goal were weighted according to each participant’s ranking order. Higher values indicate a combination of higher importance ranking and more participants selecting that goal, whereas lower values indicate that fewer people selected that goal and/or did not rank it as highly. Table 6 displays these calculated, weighted importance ranking scores from 2014 in comparison to 2015 scores. Additionally, the change in these weighted scores from 2014 to 2015 is presented in this table. Positive numbers in the ranking change column indicate that a particular institutional goal has increased in priority/ranking in 2015 compared to 2014; a negative ranking change indicates that an institutional goal has decreased in priority/ranking compared to the previous year. Figure 2 depicts weighted importance ranking scores from 2014 and 2015 for each of the listed institutional goals on the survey.


26

Table 3. Institutional Goals: Importance Rating Descriptives (Spring 2015; Sorted by Level of Importance)

Statements Rated on Importance Scales (Score of 1: “Not important at all” / Score of 5: “Very important”)

Mean SD n

[B] Retain more of its current students to graduation 4.69 0.59 246

[I] Improve employee morale 4.63 0.69 244

[G] Improve the quality of existing academic programs 4.60 0.64 245

[C] Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4.47 0.76 245

[A] Increase the enrollment of new students 4.22 0.91 246

[F] Develop new academic programs 3.90 1.03 244

[H] Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 3.79 1.00 245

[E] Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 3.56 1.16 245

[D] Recruit students from new geographic markets 3.47 1.11 246

[J] Recruit international students 3.02 1.21 245

Table 4. Institutional Goals: Means and Mean Change of Importance Scores from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015


Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Mean

Change

Increase the enrollment of new students 4.23 4.22 -0.01

Retain more of its current students to graduation 4.70 4.69 -0.01

Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4.50 4.47 -0.03

Recruit students from new geographic markets 3.17 3.47 0.30

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 3.37 3.56 0.19

Develop new academic programs 3.73 3.90 0.17

Improve the quality of existing academic programs 4.69 4.60 -0.09

Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 3.76 3.79 0.03

Improve employee morale 4.73 4.63 -0.10

Recruit international students 2.96 3.02 0.06

Some other goal 3.15 2.96 -0.19


27

-0.01 -0.01-0.03

0.30

0.190.17

-0.09

0.03

-0.10

0.06

-0.19

Increase theenrollment ofnew students

Retain more ofits currentstudents tograduation

Improve theacademic ability

of enteringstudent classes

Recruit studentsfrom new

geographicmarkets

Increase thediversity of racial

and ethnicgroups

representedamong the

student body

Develop newacademicprograms

Improve thequality ofexisting

academicprograms

Improve theappearance of

campusbuildings and

grounds

Improveemployee

morale

Recruitinternational

students

Some other goal

Figure 1. Mean Change of Importance Scores from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015


28

Table 5. Institutional Goals: Statistical Comparison of Importance Scores between Southwestern College and

Comparison Group α


SWC Mean

Comparison Group Mean

A) Increase the enrollment of new students 4.22 4.31

B) Retain more of its current students to graduation 4.69 4.67

C) Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4.47 4.39

D) Recruit students from new geographic markets 3.47 3.59

E) Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 3.56 3.59

F) Develop new academic programs 3.90 3.95

G) Improve the quality of existing academic programs 4.60 4.53

H) Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 3.79 3.85

I) Improve employee morale 4.63 4.56

α None of Southwestern College’s mean scores differed significantly from the Comparison Group.

Table 6. Institutional Goals: Weighted Priority Ranking of Institutional Goals and Ranking Change from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015

2014 Weighted Ranking

2015 Weighted Ranking

Ranking Change

[A] Increase the enrollment of new students 10.9 13.8 2.9

[B] Retain more of its current students to graduation 24.5 26.7 2.2

[C] Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 11.7 10.0 -1.7

[D] Recruit students from new geographic markets 0.2 0.5 0.3

[E] Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 0.3 1.7 1.4

[F] Develop new academic programs 4.2 6.4 2.2

[G] Improve the quality of existing academic programs 23.2 21.2 -2.0

[H] Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 1.1 1.9 0.8

[I] Improve employee morale 21.3 16.4 -4.8

[J] Recruit international students 0.7 0.0 -0.7

[K] Some other goal 1.9 1.3 -0.6


29

Figure 2. Weighted Priority Ranking of Institutional Goals from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015

10.9

24.5

11.7

0.2 0.3

4.2

23.2

1.1

21.3

0.7

1.9

13.8

26.7

10.0

0.5

1.7

6.4

21.2

1.9

16.4

0.0

1.3

Increase theenrollment ofnew students

Retain more ofits currentstudents tograduation

Improve theacademic ability

of enteringstudent classes

Recruit studentsfrom new

geographicmarkets

Increase thediversity of racial

and ethnicgroups

representedamong the

student body

Develop newacademicprograms

Improve thequality ofexisting

academicprograms

Improve theappearance of

campusbuildings and

grounds

Improveemployee

morale

Recruitinternational

students

Some other goal



30

Section 3: Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making

Table 7. Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making: Involvement Rating Descriptives (Spring 2015, Sorted by Level of Involvement)

Table 8. Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making: Statistical Comparison of Involvement Ratings between Southwestern College and Comparison Group

Table 9. Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making: Distance Scores and Change from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015 Figure 3. Bar Chart of Involvement Distance Scores from Spring 2014 and Spring 2015

Following ranking of institutional goals, survey respondents were then asked to assess the level of involvement in planning and decision-making of nine campus constituency groups (e.g., students, faculty, trustees, senior administrators, etc.). Participants rated involvement on a Likert scale from 1 (“Not enough involvement”) to 5 (“Too much involvement”), with 3 representing “Just the right involvement.” Table 7 presents descriptive data related to the involvement ratings of constituency groups. Descriptive statistics include the mean, standard deviation (“SD”), and the valid number of responses tallied for each item (“n”). Please see Statistical Terminology on page 2 for further clarification of statistics. Mean scores of involvement are presented in order of highest to lowest involvement. Table 8 provides a comparison of involvement mean scores from Southwestern College to the institutional comparison group. Means ratings of five of the eight constituency groups were significantly different between the College and the comparison group for this year’s survey administration, and these have been highlighted in tan in the table. Due to the anchors of the scale representing the extremes of “under-involvement” and “over-involvement,” a distance score has been calculated from the “optimal” answer of 3 (Just the right involvement). In Table 9, the values for each constituency group are calculated and represent the distance away from “Just the right [amount of] involvement” for each year. Positive distance values represents perceived “over-involvement” of a constituency group, while negative distance values represent “under-involvement” for a group. Score differentials from 2014 to 2015 has also been calculated and are presented in this table. Figure 3 depicts the involvement distance scores from Table 9 from spring 2014 and spring 2015 for each constituency group in the survey. Positive values/bars above the axis indicate that a group is perceived as “over-involved.” Negative values/bars below the axis indicate that a group is perceived as “under-involved.” Values/bars that are closer to the axis represent that a group is perceived as having the “right amount” of involvement.


31

Table 7. Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making: Involvement Rating Descriptives (Spring 2015, Sorted by Level of Involvement)

INV Rank

Involvement (1 = "Not enough involvement" / 3 = "Just the right involvement" / 5 = "Too much involvement") Mean SD n

1 How involved are: Senior administrators (VP, Provost level or above) 3.91 0.97 234

2 How involved are: Deans or directors of administrative units 3.60 0.92 233

3 How involved are: Deans or chairs of academic units 3.47 0.94 232

4 How involved are: Trustees 3.35 1.00 231

5 How involved are: Academic Senate 3.10 0.94 230

6 How involved are: Faculty 3.00 1.27 237

7 How involved are: Staff 2.41 0.91 234

8 How involved are: Students 2.37 0.96 238

9 How involved are: Alumni 2.20 0.93 226

Table 8. Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making: Statistical Comparison of Involvement Ratings between Southwestern College and Comparison Group

Involvement (1 = "Not enough involvement" / 3 = "Just the right involvement" / 5 = "Too much involvement")

Southwestern College Mean

Comparison Group Mean

How involved are: Senior administrators (VP, Provost level or above) 3.91*** 3.72***

How involved are: Deans or directors of administrative units 3.60*** 3.34***

How involved are: Deans or chairs of academic units 3.47** 3.29**

How involved are: Trustees 3.35 3.24

How involved are: Faculty 3.00*** 2.61***

How involved are: Staff 2.41 2.34

How involved are: Students 2.37 2.33

How involved are: Alumni 2.20*** 2.52***

** ,*** Group means are significantly different at .01 and .001 levels, respectively, and highlighted in tan for emphasis.

Table 9. Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making: Distance Scores & Change from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015

Spring 2014

Distance Score

Spring 2015

Distance Score

Distance Score

Change

Faculty -0.05 0.00 0.05

Staff -0.71 -0.59 0.12

Deans or directors of administrative units 0.60 0.60 0.00

Deans or chairs of academic units 0.41 0.47 0.06

Senior administrators (VP, Provost level or above) 0.92 0.91 -0.01

Students -0.69 -0.63 0.06

Trustees 0.47 0.35 -0.12

Alumni -0.72 -0.80 -0.08

Academic Senate 0.10 0.10 0.00


32

Figure 3. Involvement Distance Scores from Spring 2014 and Spring 2015

-0.05

-0.71

0.60

0.41

0.92

-0.69

0.47

-0.72

0.10

0.00

-0.59

0.60

0.47

0.91

-0.63

0.35

-0.80

0.10

Faculty Staff Deans or directorsof administrative

units

Deans or chairs ofacademic units

Senioradministrators (VP,

Provost level orabove)

Students Trustees Alumni Academic Senate

How involved are…


Un

der

-in

volv

ed

R

igh

t A

mo

un

t

Ove

r-in

volv

ed

of

Invo

lve

me

nt


33


Section 4.A.

Table 10. Work Environment: Importance and Satisfaction Descriptives, Gap Scores, & Year-to-Year Comparison of

Gap Ranking

Table 11. Work Environment: Statistical Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Ratings between


Section 4.B.

Tables and bar charts for importance and satisfaction mean changes from 2014 to 2015

Section 4.A presents response data for twenty-five items of the College Employee Satisfaction Survey. These items

address employee attitudes toward the work environment at Southwestern College. The first data table (Table 10)

includes descriptive statistics for both importance and satisfaction ratings of each item, as well as performance gap

analysis of the two aforementioned categories. Descriptive statistics include the mean, standard deviation (“SD”), and

the valid number of responses tallied for each item (“n”). Please see Statistical Terminology on page 2 for further

clarification of statistics.

Performance gap analysis is a method used to determine the amount of disparity between the average level of

importance and the average level of satisfaction for a given survey item. The items in this table have been ranked by gap

size, from largest to smallest. Large gaps (items near the top of the list) indicate substantial differences in ratings of

importance and levels of satisfaction, and signify areas of weakness in regard to employee satisfaction. Items toward the

end of the list require less attention, as they are better balanced between the two ratings. Gap rankings for both 2014

and 2015 results are included to illustrate changes in attitudes from the previous year and are available in Table 10.

The second table in Section 4.A (Table 11) provides a comparison of importance and satisfaction ratings between

Southwestern College and the institutional comparison group. This analysis includes only the survey items provided in

the original version of the Ruffalo Noel-Levitz questionnaire, and does not include additional items specific to the

Southwestern College version of the survey. Item averages that significantly differed between our College and the

comparison group are highlighted in tan (dark tan for importance; light tan for satisfaction) and marked with one, two,

or three asterisks, depending on significance level. Please see Statistical Terminology on page 2 for further clarification

of significance testing.

In Section 4.B provides graphical and tabular information for each survey item. These charts allow for comparison

between importance and satisfaction ratings, 2014 to 2015 ratings, and also provide more detailed information

regarding the change in gap scores from year to year.


34

† Item is unique to Southwestern College’s version of the survey.

SECTION 4.A

Table 10. Work Environment: Importance and Satisfaction Descriptives, Gap Scores, & Year-to-Year Comparison of Gap Ranking

2015 Gap Rank

2014 Gap Rank


IMPORTANCE SATISFACTION

Gap Mean SD n Mean SD n

1 2 My department has the staff needed to do its job well 4.50 0.73 224 2.58 1.26 229 1.92

2 1 My department has the budget needed to do its job well 4.46 0.78 224 2.62 1.23 227 1.84

3 3 I have adequate opportunities for advancement 4.29 0.91 224 2.64 1.26 230 1.65

4 5 It is easy for me to get information at this institution 4.48 0.71 227 2.88 1.16 233 1.60

5 11 I have a reasonable workload Ɨ 4.49 0.66 225 3.07 1.38 231 1.42

6 9 I am empowered to resolve problems quickly 4.33 0.77 225 2.91 1.20 232 1.42

7 4 I am paid fairly for the work I do 4.52 0.65 225 3.13 1.27 233 1.39

8 6 I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills 4.40 0.77 224 3.02 1.23 229 1.38

9 7 The employee benefits available to me are valuable 4.52 0.71 225 3.16 1.37 231 1.36

10 10 I am comfortable expressing my opinion Ɨ 4.54 0.70 223 3.19 1.36 232 1.35

11 12 My workplace fosters an environment of ethical behavior Ɨ 4.56 0.76 223 3.30 1.40 233 1.26

12 8 I have adequate opportunities for professional development 4.39 0.76 225 3.15 1.25 232 1.24

13 16 Work responsibilities are within my job description Ɨ 4.46 0.75 222 3.25 1.36 230 1.21

14 14 My supervisor helps me improve my job performance 4.37 0.79 225 3.18 1.35 226 1.19

15 13 I have the information I need to do my job well 4.49 0.74 224 3.34 1.08 231 1.15

16 15 My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me 4.50 0.66 221 3.37 1.16 230 1.13

17 17 My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say 4.48 0.75 224 3.36 1.40 229 1.12

18 18 My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives 4.25 0.83 222 3.21 1.18 230 1.04

19 19 My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work 4.34 0.82 222 3.31 1.37 230 1.03

20 20 The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor 4.38 0.82 226 3.40 1.35 233 0.98

21 21 I learn about important campus events in a timely manner 4.11 0.81 226 3.21 1.06 231 0.90

22 23 The work I do is valuable to the institution 4.53 0.66 227 3.73 1.15 230 0.80

23 22 I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures 4.14 0.85 225 3.34 1.04 230 0.80

24 24 I am proud to work at this institution 4.53 0.64 224 3.78 1.19 230 0.75

25 25 The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding 4.56 0.64 225 4.01 0.96 231 0.55


35

SECTION 4.A

Table 11. Work Environment: Statistical Comparison of Importance and Satisfaction Ratings between Southwestern College and Comparison Group



IMP Mean

SAT Mean

Gap IMP

Mean SAT

Mean Gap IMP SAT

It is easy for me to get information at this institution 4.48 2.88 1.61 4.47 3.34 1.14 NS ***

I learn about important campus events in a timely manner 4.11 3.21 0.90 4.20 3.57 0.62 NS ***

I am empowered to resolve problems quickly 4.33 2.91 1.42 4.40 3.42 0.98 NS ***

I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures 4.14 3.34 0.80 4.21 3.55 0.67 NS **

I have the information I need to do my job well 4.49 3.34 1.15 4.60 3.67 0.93 ** ***

My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me 4.50 3.37 1.12 4.56 3.74 0.83 NS ***

My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say 4.48 3.36 1.12 4.57 3.89 0.68 * ***

My supervisor helps me improve my job performance 4.37 3.18 1.19 4.43 3.75 0.68 NS ***

My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives 4.25 3.21 1.04 4.22 3.62 0.61 NS ***

My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work 4.34 3.31 1.03 4.31 3.67 0.64 NS ***

My department has the budget needed to do its job well 4.46 2.62 1.84 4.48 3.14 1.35 NS ***

My department has the staff needed to do its job well 4.50 2.58 1.91 4.54 3.11 1.42 NS ***

I am paid fairly for the work I do 4.52 3.13 1.39 4.54 3.17 1.38 NS NS

The employee benefits available to me are valuable 4.52 3.16 1.36 4.57 3.83 0.74 NS ***

I have adequate opportunities for advancement 4.29 2.64 1.65 4.21 3.08 1.13 NS ***

I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills 4.40 3.02 1.38 4.38 3.43 0.95 NS ***

I have adequate opportunities for professional development 4.39 3.15 1.24 4.35 3.46 0.89 NS ***

The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding 4.56 4.01 0.55 4.55 4.11 0.44 NS NS

The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor 4.38 3.40 0.98 4.44 3.89 0.55 NS ***

The work I do is valuable to the institution 4.53 3.73 0.80 4.55 4.00 0.55 NS ***

I am proud to work at this institution 4.53 3.78 0.75 4.56 4.14 0.42 NS ***

*, **, *** Group means are significantly different at .05, .01, and .001 levels, respectively, and highlighted in tan for emphasis.


36

Section 4.B: Work Environment, Tables & Charts

39. It is easy for me to get information at this institution


Spring 2014 4.55 2.80 1.75

Spring 2015 4.48 2.88 1.60

Difference -0.07 0.08 -0.15

41. I am empowered to resolve problems quickly


Spring 2014 4.44 2.87 1.57

Spring 2015 4.33 2.91 1.42

Difference -0.11 0.04 -0.15

40. I learn about important campus events in a timely manner


Spring 2014 4.24 3.25 0.99

Spring 2015 4.11 3.21 0.90

Difference -0.13 -0.04 -0.09

42. I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures


Spring 2014 4.25 3.27 0.98

Spring 2015 4.14 3.34 0.80

Difference -0.11 0.07 -0.18

4.55

2.80

4.48

2.88

225 220227 233


n


4.44

2.87

4.33

2.91

221 216225 232


n


4.24

3.25

4.11

3.21

223 216226 231


n


4.25

3.27

4.14

3.34

219 217225 230


n



37

43. I have the information I need to do my job well


Spring 2014 4.62 3.35 1.27

Spring 2015 4.49 3.34 1.15

Difference -0.13 -0.01 -0.12

45. My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say


Spring 2014 4.54 3.40 1.14

Spring 2015 4.48 3.36 1.12

Difference -0.06 -0.04 -0.02

44. My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me


Spring 2014 4.56 3.37 1.19

Spring 2015 4.50 3.37 1.13

Difference -0.06 0.00 -0.06

46. My supervisor helps me improve my job performance


Spring 2014 4.46 3.22 1.24

Spring 2015 4.37 3.18 1.19

Difference -0.09 -0.04 -0.05

4.62

3.35

4.49

3.34

220 219224 231


n


4.54

3.40

4.48

3.36

218 219224 229


n


4.56

3.37

4.50

3.37

222 220221 230


n


4.46

3.22

4.37

3.18

220 219225 226


n



38

47. My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives


Spring 2014 4.31 3.21 1.10

Spring 2015 4.25 3.21 1.04

Difference -0.06 0.00 -0.06

49. My department has the budget needed to do its job well


Spring 2014 4.58 2.45 2.13

Spring 2015 4.46 2.62 1.84

Difference -0.12 0.17 -0.29

48. My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work


Spring 2014 4.39 3.29 1.10

Spring 2015 4.34 3.31 1.03

Difference -0.05 0.02 -0.07

50. My department has the staff needed to do its job well


Spring 2014 4.64 2.66 1.98

Spring 2015 4.50 2.58 1.92

Difference -0.14 -0.08 -0.06

4.31

3.21

4.25

3.21

220 218222 230


n


4.58

2.45

4.46

2.62

220 217224 227


n


4.39

3.29

4.34

3.31

219 219222 230


n


4.64

2.66

4.50

2.58

217 213224 229


n



39

51. I am paid fairly for the work I do


Spring 2014 4.57 2.78 1.79

Spring 2015 4.52 3.13 1.39

Difference -0.05 0.35 -0.40

53. I have adequate opportunities for advancement


Spring 2014 4.37 2.51 1.86

Spring 2015 4.29 2.64 1.65

Difference -0.08 0.13 -0.21

52. The employee benefits available to me are valuable


Spring 2014 4.63 2.97 1.66

Spring 2015 4.52 3.16 1.36

Difference -0.11 0.19 -0.30

54. I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills


Spring 2014 4.48 2.77 1.71

Spring 2015 4.40 3.02 1.38

Difference -0.08 0.25 -0.33

4.57

2.78

4.52

3.13

220 219225 233


n


4.37

2.51

4.29

2.64

221 221224 230


n


4.63

2.97

4.52

3.16

218 215225 231


n


4.48

2.77

4.40

3.02

220 217224 229


n



40

55. I have adequate opportunities for professional development


Spring 2014 4.44 2.82 1.62

Spring 2015 4.39 3.15 1.24

Difference -0.05 0.33 -0.38

57. The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor


Spring 2014 4.43 3.40 1.03

Spring 2015 4.38 3.40 0.98

Difference -0.05 0.00 -0.02

56. The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding


Spring 2014 4.62 4.05 0.57

Spring 2015 4.56 4.01 0.55

Difference -0.06 -0.04 -0.02

58. The work I do is valuable to the institution


Spring 2014 4.61 3.75 0.86

Spring 2015 4.53 3.73 0.80

Difference -0.08 -0.02 -0.06

4.44

2.82

4.39

3.15

218 217225 232


n


4.43

3.40

4.38

3.40

222 218226 233


n


4.62

4.05

4.56

4.01

221 222225 231


n


4.61

3.75

4.53

3.73

222 220227 230


n



41

59. I am proud to work at this institution


Spring 2014 4.50 3.69 0.81

Spring 2015 4.53 3.78 0.75

Difference 0.03 0.09 -0.06

61. Work responsibilities are within my job description


Spring 2014 4.48 3.33 1.15

Spring 2015 4.46 3.25 1.21

Difference -0.02 -0.08 0.06

60. I have a reasonable workload


Spring 2014 4.49 3.09 1.40

Spring 2015 4.49 3.07 1.42

Difference 0.00 -0.02 0.02

62. My workplace fosters an environment of ethical behavior


Spring 2014 4.57 3.23 1.34

Spring 2015 4.56 3.30 1.26

Difference -0.01 0.07 -0.08

4.50

3.69

4.53

3.78

221 220224 230


n


4.48

3.33

4.46

3.25

214 217222 230


n


4.49

3.09

4.49

3.07

220 222225 231


n


4.57

3.23

4.56

3.30

219 219223 233


n



42

63. I am comfortable expressing my opinion


Spring 2014 4.49 3.02 1.47

Spring 2015 4.54 3.19 1.35

Difference 0.05 0.17 -0.12

4.49

3.02

4.54

3.19

218 222223 232


n



43

Overall Satisfaction

Table 12. Overall Satisfaction: Descriptives, Spring 2015

Table 13. Overall Satisfaction: Means and Mean Change from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015

Table 14. Overall Satisfaction: Statistical Comparison of Overall Satisfaction Ratings between


The last item on the College Employee Satisfaction Survey asked respondents to rate their overall

satisfaction with their employment at Southwestern College so far. The first data table (Table 12) in this

section includes descriptive statistics for this item for the spring 2015 survey administration. Descriptive

statistics include the mean, standard deviation (“SD”), and the valid number of responses tallied for each

item (“n”). Please see Statistical Terminology on page 2 for further clarification of statistics.

The second table in this section (Table 13) depicts the overall satisfaction means and change from spring

2014 to spring 2015. Overall satisfaction did not significantly increase from the 2014 to 2015 survey

administration.

Lastly, Table 14 provides a comparison of the overall satisfaction rating between Southwestern College

and the institutional comparison group. The overall satisfaction rating was significantly lower for

Southwestern College compared to the institutional comparison group. Please see Statistical Terminology

on page 2 for further clarification of significance testing.

Table 12. Overall Satisfaction: Descriptives, Spring 2015

SATISFACTION: 1 = "Not satisfied at all” / 5 = "Very satisfied" Mean SD n

Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far: 3.65 1.08 231

Table 13. Overall Satisfaction: Means and Mean Change from Spring 2014 to Spring 2015β

SATISFACTION: 1 = "Not satisfied at all” / 5 = "Very satisfied" 2014 Mean 2015 Mean Mean

Change

Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far: 3.56 3.65 0.11

β 2014 and 2015 Overall satisfaction means are not significantly different.

Table 14. Overall Satisfaction: Statistical Comparison of Overall Satisfaction Ratings between Southwestern College and Comparison Group

SATISFACTION: 1 = "Not satisfied at all” / 5 = "Very satisfied" SWC Mean Comparison Group

Mean

Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far: 3.65*** 3.90***

*** Group means are significantly different at .001 level.


44

Survey Instrument

Employee Satisfaction Survey

Southwestern College has engaged Ruffalo Noel-Levitz to conduct this survey of employees to assess their satisfaction.

This survey should take about 20 minutes to complete. Your answers are completely anonymous, and no information is collected that

will allow individuals to be identified.

Thank you!

very

im

po

rtan

t

imp

ort

an

t

so

mew

ha

t im

po

rtan

t

no

t very

im

po

rtan

t

no

t im

po

rtan

t at

all

SECTION 1: Campus culture and policies

The following statements describe different aspects of colleges and

universities. Rate how important each of these are to you as an employee

of this institution, and then rate your satisfaction with how well the

statement is implemented on your campus.

very

sati

sfi

ed

sati

sfi

ed

so

mew

ha

t sati

sfi

ed

no

t very

sati

sfi

ed

no

t s

ati

sfi

ed

at

all

1. This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships

2. This institution treats students as its top priority

3. This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students

4. The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by most employees

5. Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution

6. The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values

7. This institution involves its employees in planning for the future

8. This institution plans carefully

9. The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose

10. This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty

11. This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of staff

12. This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of administrators

13. This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives

14. This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives

15. There are effective lines of communication between departments

16. Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff

17. There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution

18. There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution


45

very

im

po

rtan

t

imp

ort

an

t

so

mew

ha

t im

po

rtan

t

no

t very

im

po

rtan

t

no

t im

po

rtan

t at

all

SECTION 1 (Continued): Campus culture and policies

The following statements describe different aspects of colleges and

universities. Rate how important each of these are to you as an employee

of this institution, and then rate your satisfaction with how well the

statement is implemented on your campus.

very

sati

sfi

ed

sati

sfi

ed

so

mew

ha

t sati

sfi

ed

no

t very

sati

sfi

ed

no

t s

ati

sfi

ed

at

all

19. Faculty take pride in their work

20. Staff take pride in their work

21. Administrators take pride in their work

22. There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution

23. The reputation of this institution continues to improve

24. This institution is well-respected in the community

25. Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution

26. Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution

27. This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new

employees

28. This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and

training new employees

29. This institution consistently follows clear processes for recognizing

employee achievements

30. This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is

responsible for each operation and service

31. This institution’s leadership demonstrates support for shared planning

and decision-making

32. This institution’s leadership creates an environment that promotes trust

and respect

33. The Superintendent/President makes timely and informed decisions

34. The Governing Board does a good job implementing policy initiatives

35. This institution does a good job communicating its budget

decision-making processes


46

very

im

po

rtan

t

imp

ort

an

t

so

me

wh

at

imp

ort

an

t

no

t ve

ry im

po

rta

nt

no

t im

po

rtan

t a

t all

SECTION 2: Institutional goals

36. How important is it to you that this institution pursue the following

goals?

[A] Increase the enrollment of new students

[B] Retain more of its current students to graduation

[C] Improve the academic ability of entering student classes

[D] Recruit students from new geographic markets

[E] Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among

the student body

[F] Develop new academic programs

[G] Improve the quality of existing academic programs

[H] Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds

[I] Improve employee morale

[J] Some other goal

[K ] Recruit international students

37. From the list above (in Section 2), choose three goals that you believe should be this institution's top priorities, and enter the letter

for that goal below, in order of importance:

First priority goal:

Second priority goal:

Third priority goal:

What other institutional goals do you think are important? Please describe them in the space below:

SECTION 3: Involvement in planning and decision-making

38. In your opinion, how much involvement do each of the following

have in planning and decision-making at your institution

too

mu

ch

inv

olv

em

en

t

mo

re t

ha

n e

no

ug

h

inv

olv

em

en

t

jus

t th

e r

igh

t

inv

olv

em

en

t

no

t q

uit

e e

no

ug

h

inv

olv

em

en

t

no

t e

no

ug

h

inv

olv

em

en

t

Faculty Staff Deans or directors of administrative units Deans or chairs of academic units Senior administrators (VP, Provost level or above) Students Trustees Alumni Academic Senate


47

very

im

po

rtan

t

imp

ort

an

t

so

mew

hat

imp

ort

an

t

no

t very

im

po

rtan

t

no

t im

po

rtan

t at

all

SECTION 4: Work environment

The following statements describe conditions of your work environment as

an employee at this institution. Rate how important each of these are to

you, and then rate your satisfaction with this aspect of your work

environment. very

sati

sfi

ed

sati

sfi

ed

so

mew

hat

sati

sfi

ed

no

t very

sati

sfi

ed

no

t s

ati

sfi

ed

at

all

39. It is easy for me to get information at this institution

40. I learn about important campus events in a timely manner

41. I am empowered to resolve problems quickly

42. I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures

43. I have the information I need to do my job well

44. My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me

45. My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say

46. My supervisor helps me improve my job performance

47. My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives

48. My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work

49. My department has the budget needed to do its job well

50. My department has the staff needed to do its job well

51. I am paid fairly for the work I do

52. The employee benefits available to me are valuable

53. I have adequate opportunities for advancement

54. I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills

55. I have adequate opportunities for professional development

56. The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding

57. The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor

58. The work I do is valuable to the institution

59. I am proud to work at this institution

60. I have a reasonable workload

61. Work responsibilities are within my job description

62. My workplace fosters an environment of ethical behavior

63. I am comfortable expressing my opinion


48

64. Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far:

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Not very satisfied

Not satisfied at all

65. Please provide any additional feedback about the campus culture and policies at Southwestern College.

66. Please provide any additional feedback about this institution's goals

67. Please provide any additional feedback about the work environment at Southwestern College.

SECTION 5: Demographics

68. How long have you worked at this institution?

Less than 1 year

1 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 20 years

More than 20 years

69. Is your position:

Full-time

Part-time

70. Is your position:

Faculty

Staff

Administrator


Open-ended Response Summaries

Throughout the 2015 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS), survey respondents were given the opportunity to

respond to four open-ended questions. The first open-ended question was supplemental to Section 2 and related to

institutional goals; the remaining three open-ended questions were located at the end of Section 4 and requested

additional feedback regarding three of the four major sections of the survey.

Q #37: “What other institutional goals do you think are important? Please describe them in the space below.”

Q #65: “Please provide any additional feedback about the campus culture and policies at Southwestern College.”

Q #66: “Please provide any additional feedback about this institution's goals.”

Q #67: “Please provide any additional feedback about the work environment at Southwestern College.”

The responses provided to these questions were carefully coded and summarized in the following report. Implications of

these results should be interpreted with caution as responses were optional and do not reflect all respondent’s opinions,

let alone that of all college employees and therefore are not statistically sound. For a valid understanding of the survey

results, the statistically-supported, quantitative analysis (provided in the initial report) should serve as the main focus,

and the preceding qualitative information should be considered only as a supplement to those major findings.

Survey Prompts in Context

For a comprehensive understanding, employee comments to open-ended prompts should be viewed in context of the

CESS questionnaire framework.

The first open-ended prompt, “What other institutional goals do you think are important?” is found within the

Institutional Goals section. This question serves as a follow-up to an earlier prompt to “choose three goals that you

believe should be this institution's top priorities” from a listing of eleven (11) specified institutional goals. Question 37 is

intended to address any other aspirational goals that are not currently incorporated in institutional planning. To

ascertain more generalized feedback regarding institutional goals, an additional prompt is found within Section 4,

Workplace Environment. This latter prompt (Question 66) requests that employees “provide any additional feedback

about this institution's goals.”

Additionally, the Workplace Environment section contained two prompts regarding Campus Culture & Policies and the

Workplace Environment. Question 65 asked respondents to “provide any additional feedback about the campus culture

and policies at Southwestern College.” The final prompt (Question 67) sought employee perspective regarding “any

additional feedback about the work environment at Southwestern College.” This prompt was intended as a follow-up to

statements that "describe conditions of [the] work environment as an employee at this institution” which included

topics such as compensation, training opportunities, staffing, workload, and others.

Finally, it should be noted that an underlying attempt of this survey, as a whole, is to identify challenges or areas of

improvement for the college in regards to campus culture and policies, work environment, planning and decision-

making, and institutional goals. One limitation of the open-ended section of the survey may be the lack of

counterbalance; that is, the absence of prompting respondents to reflect on what they believe the college is doing right

and to provide their perspective of what programs and services are already meeting expectation.


Response Classifications

In order to facilitate summarization of the College Employee Satisfaction Survey’s (CESS) open-ended responses, several

thematic categories were constructed to classify employee opinions and perspectives. These categories were guided by

a need to encompass comments in a logical and meaningful way to the campus community and at the same time reflect

the employee survey’s underlying focus of “Campus Culture and Policies,” “Institutional Goals,” “Involvement in

Planning and Decision-Making,” and the “Work Environment.” Similar to last year’s administration, survey responses

were classified based on content and tone using a homegrown method of content analysis. Twelve classification groups

were developed to organize respondent opinions and perspectives systematically. Employee comments varied greatly in

length, many with an array of thematic contents; thus, many responses are classified under two or more categories.

A majority of the category themes derived from last year’s report carried over to this year, as several comments and

concerns from the prior year were voiced again in the current survey administration. There were only a few minor

changes to category titles and operational definitions to allow for more accurate and relevant categorization. Responses

were classified based on the following categories:

1. Budget involves mention of fiscal allocations and processes, employee salary/ compensation, and other

budgetary items.

2. Communication refers to formal and informal information patterns across departments, offices, and

employees.

3. Employee Services relates to organizational practices and mechanisms at the employee level such as hiring

and human resource management. This category also includes comments regarding adjunct issues (like job

security) and employee job fit.

4. Infrastructure & Technology encompasses physical resources and capital such as facilities, maintenance,

technology, and other equipment.

5. Mission & Priorities includes institutional-level comments regarding the college’s mission and its perceived

organization of priorities.

6. Morale relates to an individual’s workplace satisfaction, attitudes, and sentiments. A sub-category within

Morale emerged related to intimidation, trust, and fear of retaliation.

7. Planning & Decision-Making relates to organizational practices of planning and decision-making, including

shared governance.

8. Policy & Procedure refers to the understanding and implementation of departmental or institutional policies

and procedures, or lack thereof.

9. Student Success involves any institutional processes and initiatives affecting curriculum, academic outcomes,

and educational trajectories.

10. Transparency includes institutional disclosure practices, or the availability of information permitting collective decision-making. 11. Workplace Support involves staff development, training, and job-related support within and across

departments.

12. Other encompasses employee comments outside the aforementioned categories (including topics of

compressed calendar, safety, transparency, community/PR, and others).


Distribution of Category Topics

Table 1, presented below, provides a general overview of the most frequently mentioned topics by each open-ended

question. The left-most “TOTAL” column illustrates the most frequently mentioned categories across all four questions.

The top three categories overall are Morale, Student Success, and Employee Services, respectively. The distribution of

categories within each question will be discussed in further detail in the succeeding sections. Finally, the bottom row,

“Number of Respondents” gives light to the limitation of generalizability of these responses to the entire campus

community as, on average, only about 73 employees responded to each question (Highest n = 103, Question 65; Lowest

n = 46, Question 66).

Table 1. Distribution of Categories across Open-Ended Responses

Question 37 Question 65 Question 66 Question 67 TOTAL

CATEGORY n % n % n % n % n

Budget 8 6% 14 5% 6 6% 10 7% 38

Communication 2 2% 24 9% 4 4% 12 8% 42

Employee Services 17 13% 32 12% 8 9% 30 21% 87

Infrastructure & Technology 13 10% 14 5% 5 5% 5 4% 37

Mission & Priorities 7 5% 12 5% 9 10% 2 1% 30

Morale 14 11% 56 22% 14 15% 49 35% 133

Planning & Decision-Making 11 9% 17 7% 11 12% 6 4% 45

Policy & Procedure 4 3% 27 10% 1 1% 9 6% 41

Student Success 36 28% 32 12% 21 22% 5 4% 94

Transparency 2 2% 11 4% 1 1% 4 3% 18

Workplace Support 6 5% 12 5% 6 6% 3 2% 27

Other 9 7% 9 4% 8 9% 7 5% 33

Number of Category Tags 129 100% 260 100% 94 100% 142 100% 625

Number of Respondents 71 25% 103 36% 46 16% 73 26% 238


Section 2, Question 37 Response Summary

“What other institutional goals do you think are important?”

The first open-ended prompt, “What other institutional goals do you think are important?” is found within the

Institutional Goals section. This question serves as a follow-up to an earlier prompt to “choose three goals that you

believe should be this institution's top priorities” from a listing of eleven (11) specified institutional goals. Question 37 is

intended to address any other aspirational goals that are not currently incorporated in institutional planning. The word

cloud below depicts the one-hundred most frequently used words in employee responses to Question 37.

Figure 1. Word Cloud of 100 Most Frequently Used Words in Open-Ended Question 37 Responses

Wordle is an internet application used to generate “word clouds” from text strings (http://www.wordle.net/). The clouds give greater prominence

to words that appear more frequently in the source text.

Figures 2 and 3 featured below provide further detail of Question 37 responses. The most frequently mentioned topics

in regards to other important institutional goals were student success, employee services, and morale. This is slightly

different from the content of responses in the 2014 survey administration as those primarily centered around goals

related to student success, institutional process (which was formerly defined as a combination of planning and

decision-making and policy and procedure), and budget.

The tone of commentary was primarily neutral for the majority of responses, which is not surprising considering

respondents were simply asked to provide feedback on additional aspirations they have for the college.




Figure 2. Distribution of Topics in Open-Ended Question 37 Responses

Figure 3. General Tone of Open-Ended Question 37 Responses

28%

13%

11%10%

8%

7%

6%

5%

5%

3% 2% 2%Student Success (36)

Employee Services (17)

Morale (14)

Infrastructure & Technology (13)

Planning & Decision-Making (11)

Other (9)

Budget (8)

Mission & Priorities (7)

Workplace Support (6)

Policy & Procedure (4)

Communication (2)

Transparency (2)

8%

41%

57%

15%

55%

11%

50%

57%

33%

100%

50%

50%

Student Success (36)


Morale (14)



Other (9)

Budget (8)




Communication (2)

Transparency (2)

Tone of Commentary by Category

Negative ( - ) Neutral ( = ) Positive ( + )




For the purpose of organization of each open-ended response summary, the three most frequently mentioned themes

are discussed. Summary statements within each question category are broad and reflect an attempt to accurately and

objectively recapitulate employee opinion.

Within context of Question 37, response content was most frequently tagged for Student Success, Employee Services,

and Morale. The following bullet points summarize many of the comments made in regards to these topics at

Southwestern College:

Student Success

Improve quality of existing academic and support programs

Increase support and morale among full-time and part-time faculty in order to better serve students

Align and re-evaluate course and program offerings to better match local and current workforce needs

Employee Services

Improve hiring process and prioritization for adjunct faculty

Increase the number of full-time faculty

Increase the number of student support staff (tutors, custodians, library & bookstore employees)

Morale

Equality of treatment and pay among all employees

Improve relationships between administrators, faculty, and staff

Create an environment of inclusion and support for part-time faculty



“Please provide any additional feedback about the campus culture and policies at Southwestern College.”

Section 4, Workplace Environment, contained three additional prompts regarding Campus Culture & Policies,

Institutional Goals, and Workplace Environment. The second open-ended question of the survey instructed respondents

to “provide any additional feedback about the campus culture and policies at Southwestern College.” The word cloud

below depicts the one-hundred most frequently used words in employee responses to Question 65.

Figure 5. “Wordle” of 100 Most Frequently Used Words in Open-Ended Question 65 Responses



Figures 6 and 7 featured below provide further detail of Question 65 responses. Similar to the first prompt, the most

frequently mentioned topics in regards to campus culture and policies were morale, employee services, and student

success. This is slightly different from the content of responses in the 2014 survey administration as those primarily

centered around morale, institutional process (which was formerly defined as a combination of planning and decision-

making and policy and procedure), and budget.

The tone of commentary was primarily negative in nature for the majority of responses, across all categories.






22%

12%

12%

10%

9%

7%

5%

5%

5%

5%4% 4%

Morale (56)




Communication (24)


Budget (14)




Transparency (11)

Other (9)

79%

94%

81%

78%

88%

82%

79%

93%

92%

92%

91%

100%

Morale (56)




Communication (24)


Budget (14)




Transparency (11)

Other (9)









Within context of Question 65, response content was most frequently tagged for Morale, Employee Services, and

Student Success. The following bullet points summarize many of the comments made in regards to these topics at


Morale

Great lack of trust and ability in administration and management

Issues regarding involvement, communication, and support from administration to classified staff

Part-time faculty feel underappreciated

Campus culture has been improving

Employee Services

Poor job fit for many employees/ quality of hiring

Little job security for part-time faculty

Improve Human Resources communication and procedures

Student Success

Administrators do not make student’s their top priority

Create a professional, clean environment for students in order to foster success

Need for faculty training to improve academic programs (including distance education)



“Please provide any additional feedback about this institution's goals.” To ascertain more generalized feedback regarding institutional goals, and similar in format to the previous question,

respondents were asked to “please provide any additional feedback about this institution’s goals.” The word cloud

below depicts the one-hundred most frequently used words in employee responses to Question 66.



to words that appear more frequently in the source text

Figures 10 and 11 featured below provide further detail of Question 66 responses. The most frequently mentioned

topics in regards to institutional goals were student success, morale, and planning and decision-making. This is only

slightly different from the content of responses in the 2014 survey administration as those primarily centered around

morale, institutional process (which was formerly defined as a combination of planning and decision-making and policy

and procedure), and budget.

The tone of commentary was primarily neutral for the majority of responses, which is not surprising considering

respondents were simply asked to provide feedback on additional aspirations they have for the college.



“Please provide any additional feedback about this institution's goals.”



22%

15%

12%10%

9%

9%

6%

6%

5%4%

1% 1%Student Success (21)

Morale (14)




Other (8)

Budget (6)



Communication (4)

Transparency (1)


29%

64%

27%

56%

38%

38%

67%

17%

40%

0%

100%

0%

100%

100%


Morale (14)




Other (8)

Budget (6)



Communication (4)

Transparency (1)






“Please provide any additional feedback about this institution's goals.” For the purpose of organization of each open-ended response summary, the three most frequently mentioned themes



Within context of Question 66, response content was most frequently tagged for Student Success, Morale, and Planning and Decision-Making. The following bullet points summarize many of the comments made in regards to these topics at Southwestern College:

Student Success

Funding, and decisions made around it, should be centered around our students (improve classrooms and office space, increase staff, update technology).

Build curriculum around workforce/vocational and transfer needs to support student success after SWC

Morale

Improve level of trust between faculty and staff

Train administration to be more supportive & responsive to staff

Planning & Decision-Making

Include faculty in decision-making process

Increase the practice of data-informed decision making to better align program offerings with student needs

Keep student needs at the center of institutional decision-making



“Please provide any additional feedback about the work environment at Southwestern College.”

The final prompt sought employee perspective regarding “any additional feedback about the work environment at

Southwestern College.” This prompt was intended as a follow-up to statements that "describe conditions of [the] work

environment as an employee at this institution” which included topics such as compensation, training opportunities,

staffing, workload, and others. The word cloud below depicts the one-hundred most frequently used words in employee

responses to Question 67.




Figures 14 and 15 featured below provide further detail of Question 67 responses. The most frequently mentioned

topics in regards to the College’s work environment were morale and employee services. This is slightly different from

the content of responses in the 2014 survey administration as those primarily centered around institutional process

(which was formerly defined as a combination of planning and decision-making and policy and procedure), student

success, and budget.

The tone of commentary was primarily negative in nature for the majority of responses, across all categories.






35%

21%8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

4%4%

3% 2% 1%Morale (49)


Communication (12)

Budget (10)


Other (7)



Student Success (5)

Transparency (4)



69%

83%

92%

80%

100%

100%

83%

80%

60%

75%

67%

100%

Morale (49)


Communication (12)

Budget (10)


Other (7)


Infrastructure & Tech (5)

Student Success (5)

Transperancy (4)

Workplace Support & Training (3)










Within context of Question 67, response content was most frequently tagged for Morale, Employee Services, and

Communication. The following bullet points summarize many of the comments made in regards to these topics at


Morale

Dissatisfaction among competency and supervision of administrators

Environment of fear and bullying from high-level employees

While the environment is generally welcoming and collaborative, there are subgroups that are greatly

discontent and these individuals seem to have a large effect on campus or departmental culture.

Employee Services

Little to no accountability of administrators

Lack of training, supervision, and support from management/ administration

Increase hiring of staff and faculty and improve process of replacing vacant positions

Communication

Little to no interaction with department heads and division deans

Suggestions for change are often shut down

Regular feedback from higher level employees would foster improvement and inclusion

college employee satisfaction survey - chula vista, california · 2019-10-23 · college employee...

Documents